Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Want to leave your comments?

To suggest that tribalism is "the dead end to [one’s] shallow end of the gene pool," is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Tribalism, i.e., feelings of loyalty due to shared kinship, is of human nature. BrunoUno’s attitude is like saying that sex (gender) is the cause of so much destruction, so let’s get rid of it. Yet, you can’t do that without changing the nature of Humanity. So it seems that BrunoUno is dissatisfied with the species homo sapiens as it is. Loyalty to one’s own is not based upon perceived differences, but on perceived kinships. If BrunoUno does not feel more loyalty to his own, than to a stranger, then I feel sorry for him.

And let’s face it. Conflict and triumph are the reasons why Man is where he is today… so that some self-righteous, homosexual ding-a-lings can criticize their origins.

Brunouno

August 22, 2014 10:49PM

Tribalism is based on pure Neanderthal politics, us against them for some trumped-up perceived "differences" of primitive people. Nothing good has ever come of it. You can lounge back in your comfortable paradigms, but all that it will mean is a dead end to your shallow end of the gene pool. The species of homo sapiens is polluted with too many of your kind to exist for another century.

robert1

August 21, 2014 4:24PM

Loyalty, valuation of one’s own, is not a function of logic and reason. Logic and reason are means, not ends. A means toward something. And strangely enough, tribalism does not require a belief in Big Daddy in the Sky; it only requires an evaluation. It is not logical for a person to value his own, but it is also not logical for BrunoUno to value himself—though I understand that he does, and often. But let’s take BrunoUno’s ethics on just for a moment. If it is not logical to value one’s own tribe, why would it be logical to care what happens to humanity necessarily either? Why privilege the homo sapiens species? Silence.

Not complaining. Acting. It is BrunoUno who is complaining. He is complaining that a conqueror should dare try to keep and protect his conquest. On what basis? No one has a right to demand that another give away anything. In BrunoUno’s world, no one has a right to try to hold on to anything… to lay a claim to it. Again, on what basis?

It is ours… if we can keep it.

Brunouno

August 21, 2014 8:22AM

robert1, August 6, 2014 1:39PM

"BrunoUno can feel loyal to the entirety of the homo sapiens species (a species, not a race or tribe) undifferentiated, and that is his prerogative. But that is not what I feel. It is not where my duty lies."

And that is the main thing wrong with the world today...tribalism trumping logic and reason. Fact is that we are all decendants of Africans. As for property rights, who really "OWNS" property? No one. At BEST, you simply rent property for your lifetime, then you leave just like you arrived...naked and alone. There are no lugagge racks on a hearse.

The point is that you and your ilk are complaining after YOU got yours...how noble of you. Now that I am immigrated to this country, nobody else can come in! Well, it ain't yours to make that decision. The "much strife" that you and your ilk are causing is very destructive and may lead to the end of life as we know it. Of course, for someone who is steeped in mysticism where your magic daddy in the sky is gonna come down and swoop all of the believers up and take you to hebbin, praise Hey Zeus, destroying the Earth really is no big deal. But for us rational science-based people who do not believe in such folly, it is a vary big deal indeed!

Brunouno

August 21, 2014 8:02AM

rky62: The population figure for Indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.

Alan Taylor (2002). American colonies; Volume 1 of The Penguin history of the United States, History of the United States Series. Penguin. p. 40. ISBN 9780142002100. Retrieved 7 October 2013.

rky62

August 16, 2014 8:23AM

Bruno, do you have source material to support the number 100 million? It was probably closer to 15-20 million. Still a significant number, but a lot less than 100 million.

ukfan: Do you want the US to evetnually have the population of China? Or be stacked on top of each other in small apartments as in Japan? Would you personally adopt a few and have them live in your home? Or is this a case of anywhere is fine, but "not in my back yard".

robert1

August 6, 2014 1:39PM

BrunoUno can feel loyal to the entirety of the homo sapiens species (a species, not a race or tribe) undifferentiated, and that is his prerogative. But that is not what I feel. It is not where my duty lies. Actually it is not where BrunoUno’s duty lies, but there is no point in arguing the matter with the likes of him. Is he saying that he does not have a duty to prefer those persons having American citizenship over non-Americans? That would be really endorsing the open-borders concept.

If he does not feel loyalty to his own family, prefer his own family, to any other, his is simply a hopelessly immoral case.

Pushed on the point, I might confess preference for the "tribe" of homo sapiens to the tribes of Nature… say,other animals. But then probably BrunoUno does not have a preference for homo sapiens over animals. From what I understand.

Tribalism... a source of strife? Surely. So is property. Better to have much strife over something than no strife over no-thing.

Most all land was "stolen" from someone else, in case BrunoUno has neglected his history texts. What is your point Mr. Marx?

"There was no United States of America until July 4, 1776, or more correctly July 2, 1776." Yes, that’s right. Good job.

Brunouno

August 5, 2014 3:04PM

robertouno: "Wow, that anyone would feel loyalty for one's own people, tribe, and race... how awfu!"

It is wayyy awful and may very well be the extinction of our species. There is only one "race" and that is the Human Race in the species of Homo Sapien...all the rest of this stuff is political and the vestiges of primative tribalism...which is not a good thing as it is the source for most of the strife and wars today. Now that is obviously lost on the likes of you who never learned the real history on your best day.

Robertouno: "No, actually we are not a nation of immigrants. There were no United States of America until the Europeans arrived. They founded it."

Really? Really!! There was no United States of America until July 4, 1776, or more correctly July 2, 1776. Dohh! And it was stolen it fair and square from the original human occupants over the next 400 years, exterminating them in the process. The country was built on the backs of slaves from Africa and China...how proud you must be as it is something that you don't admit to in your petty loyalty oath to your "own people", wtf ever that means. Fact is that we are all decendants of Africans.

pitchforkprotester

August 4, 2014 8:43PM

No, actually we are not a nation of immigrants. There were no United States of America until the Europeans arrived. They founded it.

It is the community of people that matters, not the land so much.

Very profound statements. Very good points. ukfan is a she BTW. Just some FYI

robert1

August 4, 2014 4:57PM

Ukfan makes an oft-used, but fundamentally incorrect objection.

"So it's okay for some to come here as immigrants but not others?? That's not what our country was built on. We are a nation OF immigrants."

No, actually we are not a nation of immigrants. There were no United States of America until the Europeans arrived. They founded it.

It is the community of people that matters, not the land so much.

Certainly ukfan may want, or permit, others to immigrate here. That is ukfan’s prerogative so to wish, as his opinion. It is quite another for ukfan to criticize others for not feeling as he does.

"That's like saying once I get to America and get established no one else can come in."

Yes. That's right. It is. Once they got to America, of course they could hope and desire that others not come in. Particularly to displace them. Why should they not?

Ukfan's logic is like saying that once one buys a house (or conquers it, however one wants to put the matter), that that person ought not be able to keep (or even try to keep) others out and keep it for himself.

This hatred for the border patriots seems akin to more fundamental attack on possession itself. See Rousseau. See MARX. Property. A property-owner is someone who claims to possess something, and explicitly or implicitly denies its possession and use to others.

robert1

August 4, 2014 4:43PM

"I have motives that are far beyond simple selfish urges...something that you could scarcely fathom on your best day."

Not self-righteous, are we?

Wow, that anyone would feel loyalty for one's own people, tribe, and race... how awfu!

I still think that His Holiness doesn't want to deprive San Francisco of another kilt inspector. BrunoUno's descendants? BrunoUno does realize that that would require a female of the species, right?

pitchforkprotester

August 3, 2014 10:55AM

So it's okay for some to come here as immigrants but not others??

Well yeah.. Would you want the Tailban living next door to you or in your city.

That's not what our country was built on.

Our country was built on Freedom from a tyrant ruler who subjected his own country men and women to harshness that you or I have not ever seen since that decision was made to seperate from said tyrant. Our country was also built and established on LAWS not heart string feelings. Most importantly our country was built from the blood of battle to ensure that Freedom regines and that those who oppose or present a threat to her Freedoms are dealt with in extreme measures and held to the highest extent of our LAWS.

That's what Our country was built on. Immigrants just so happen to help build the very foundation of our country and its LAWS not simply because they were immigrants but because they wanted too. If I'm not mistaken there were plenty of Indengous peoples who jumped right into those battles to help build our country.

The native Americans should have started "enforcing the immigration laws"

Your retort is as flimsy as your logic.

"The question is, why doesn't BrunoUno move?"

Homo says:If I left this country to the likes of religious zealots like you, who actively support its transformation into a corporatist theocracy, what would become of my descendants? I have motives that are far beyond simple selfish urges...something that you could scarcely fathom on your best day.

Yeah I bet you got your decendants Brown shirts pressed and sealed in Zip Lock storage bags just waiting for the day you can unleash them onto soceity.

So if we don't want to end up like the Native Americans, I suggest we start enforcing the immigration laws.

Good luck with that.. As long as you have a lawless so called leader and his sheeple that isn't going to happen.

Brunouno

August 2, 2014 11:14AM

robert1, August 1, 2014 4:41PM

"The question is, why doesn't BrunoUno move?"

If I left this country to the likes of religious zealots like you, who actively support its transformation into a corporatist theocracy, what would become of my descendants? I have motives that are far beyond simple selfish urges...something that you could scarcely fathom on your best day.

But then Castro, San Francisco, would be bereft of one kilt inspector.

Brunouno

August 1, 2014 2:45PM

The native Americans should have started "enforcing the immigration laws" as soon as they saw those white devils get off of the boat! If they had killed everyone of them as they arrived, then they could have lived here for hundreds of more years.

Brunouno

August 1, 2014 2:39PM

robert1, August 1, 2014 12:28PM

"So if we don't want to end up like the Native Americans, I suggest we start enforcing the immigration laws."

Well, considering that there were 100,000,000 native Americans here when the white man arrived from Europe, and now there are hardly any outside of Mexico and central America, that means that the white Europeans were responsible for the most devastating genocide ever known. It was "The American Indian Holocaust", also known as the “500 year war” and the “World’s Longest Holocaust In The History Of Mankind And Loss Of Human Lives.”

It ain't likely that the few refugees who seek asylum or undocumented workers who have come here to seek jobs are going to kill 320,000,000, there robert1. Boogie man much?

ukfan

August 1, 2014 2:14PM

So it's okay for some to come here as immigrants but not others?? That's not what our country was built on. We are a nation OF immigrants.

That's like saying once I get to America and get established no one else can come in.

robert1

August 1, 2014 12:28PM

So if we don't want to end up like the Native Americans, I suggest we start enforcing the immigration laws.

aga

July 31, 2014 8:09AM

aga..I was talking about the American Indians not the Europeans that came here

I know you were. What I'm saying is that even the American Indians came from Europe/Asia originally. There was no race that originated in North America. The "American Indians" just happened to be the first to migrate to North America.

They are no more native American than anyone else.

ukfan

July 31, 2014 7:51AM

aga..I was talking about the American Indians not the Europeans that came here.

aga

July 31, 2014 7:15AM

A "native american" would be any member of the peoples living in North America before Europeans arrived.

Why aren't they immigrants, too? After all, they didn't originate here any more than anyone else did. They just got here first.

Sounds like an arbitrary starting point to me.

I'm part of one of the American Indian races, but I'm also part of many European nationalities, too. Am I a native american?

Brunouno

July 30, 2014 5:26AM

beegee428, July 29, 2014 3:55PM

"So being born here doesn't make me a "native American"?"

Nope, it makes you a citizen, but not a native American. Big difference.

ukfan

July 29, 2014 4:15PM

A "native american" would be any member of the peoples living in North America before Europeans arrived.

beegee428

July 29, 2014 3:55PM

So being born here doesn't make me a "native American"?

Brunouno

July 29, 2014 10:58AM

And the native people of Central America and Mexico...just look at them! When the white man arrived on the shores of North Amercia, there were 100,000,000 native Americans on the continent...these are the surviving decendants of those people.